Except they weren’t beyond saving, the Bible just says they were “wicked
”. Unlike the people in the flood.
I just wanted to establish that there weren’t as many translation issues with the two passages.
I’ve also heard and accept something akin to that argument (the people killed would be at least barely human at least in cognitive function, they’re still regarded as spawn of Adam and Even in most interpretations. Though some say they're "part human".) I just wanted to point out that Rott’s interpretation was pretty spot on, from my POV anyhow.
Though, it doesn’t sound like the “they’re evil” and “they weren’t exactly human” view points are in conflict.
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account."Wicked" and "evil" sounds an awful lot like hair splitting. You make it sound like you have a point, but I haven't heard it.
edited 29th Sep '10 10:56:13 PM by Roman
| DA Page | Sketchbook |His point is that the antediluvian people were explicitly beyond saving, unlike the people in Nineveh.
I am going to use this discussion as an opportunity to use the word "antediluvian" as much as possible.
edited 29th Sep '10 10:58:38 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.It is rather explicit too, and I believe that is a fine goal you have there.
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.So...how 'bout that Athe?
Oh wait...
◊
Not a bad way to go about it really if you don't want to force religion on someone.
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.I need to read up on humanism. What I've heard about it sounds pretty cool.
Of course, after reading the article about the habitable exoplanet and thinking about the possibility of aliens, I feel a little bigoted saying anything too supportive of something called "humanism".
hey, look at some fun statistics I found
.
A certian individualhere who tends to think religion is the defining feature of people and society, and that murder is the worst crime, adn the absolute measure of quality of life, might find some interesting finds here.
Yay!
A question for the statisticians though—is it weird to compare states to states like that? It seems to me that you'd have to account for geography, population, etc.
It Just Bugs MeIt worth mentioning that North Dakota has the North Dakota has the “lowest percentage of non-religious people of any state, and it also has the most churches per capita of any state,”
and it has the lowest unemployment rank rate of the nation
.
I’m admittedly a little skeptical of this results because the author lists four questions, then immediately favor the two that don’t have anything to do with any sort of structured living.
Also, North Dakota is noticeably absent from the list, so it’s more of comparing the people who are “really, really sure of their beliefs and think those beliefs are really important,” to people who aren’t so steadfast in their beliefs rather than religious vs non-religious.
One must wonder what the list would have looked like if things like “praying frequently,” and “attending ceremonies” where added if it would change things up a bit.
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.Only if you buy the research of one idiot with an EKG. Ain't scientific.
I've actully seen the Myth Busters ep that tried these experiments.
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.Fucking galvanometers, how do they work?
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account."It is wonderful to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too."
I see comparisons of this sort all the time, and, I must confess, I'm getting increasingly sceptical of them. I understand that it's mostly intended to express satisfaction with one's atheism, but it clearly does more than that. Douglas Adams is clearly suggesting that, in some relevant way, God is like fairies at the bottom of the garden. But like them how? In that neither exists? That's a remarkably unhelpful thing to say
. In that they are both "supernatural"? I don't believe in that distinction and don't see why I should
. What's more, fairies are finite and plural, whereas God is neither of these; there are significant points of disanalogy. What's the point of the comparison? Or am I just overthinking what's only supposed to be a light-hearted piece of rhetoric?
I'm genuinely interested in having this explained, because I hear comparisons between God and fairies, Mighty Thor, The Flying Spagetti Monster, The Tooth Fairy and countless others all the time. People must mean something by these comparisons, and I'd like to know what.
edited 13th Apr '11 10:33:47 AM by Arthur
To me it simply means that one can enjoy beauty found in the natural world without having to have some mystical/spiritual/mythological explanations to those phenomena. To me it deals with the question "why?". People have a tendency to add some mystification into things they don't understand fully or simply enjoy. It expresses mostly a contentment in naturalism to be more specific.
That's how I understand it anyway.
'It's gonna rain!'The idea is that you look at the world/the garden on its own merits rather than the merits of some creature(s) living in it/whatever that you can't see.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.You seem to agree that the 'fairies' idea is just meant to express contentment with naturalism. If that's how you interpret it, fair enough, but I still get the feeling that there is more at work in such comparisons. Am I simply being paranoid? Such popular expressions must mean something, and it does seem to be trying to express an argument, not just a sentiment.
I'm thinking broadly of any comparison between God and an archetypal silly thing, like The Flying Spagetti Monster, The Pink Unicorn, Thor, The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, etc. I take it that someone who says, "God? I might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy!" means effectively the same thing as someone who says, "God? I might as well believe in Santa Claus!" It's the same thing expressed in various ways.
As a piece of rhetoric, I find the 'fairies' comparison very fertile, if not very persuasive. It may imply that:
- God is supernatural
- God is unlikely
- God is absurd
- There is no evidence for God
- If there were evidence for God, we would have found it by now, and we have not
- God is an old belief that has now been falsified
- God's existence has a poor empirical fit
- God is supposed to do things that ill-fit what we know about the world
- People who believe that God exists are just as foolish as people who believe that fairies exist
- People who aren't sure whether God exists are just as foolish as people who aren't sure whether fairies exist
- People who question atheism are just as foolish as people who question why we should disbelieve in fairies
- The existence or non-existence of God isn't very important and makes no profound difference to one's world view
This is just off the top of my head; I'm sure there's plenty more ideas lurking implicitly in the comparison. I think most people would agree that the above points apply very well to fairies; my only major doubt is whether any of them actually apply to God.
From what you tell me, it seems that this rhetoric is popular mostly because it means more-or-less whatever you want. It can be interpreted as a flowery way of expressing your satisfaction with atheism/naturalism/non-religion/whatever, as a host of premises that might be used in an argument, as an insult to non-atheists, a reasoned defense of atheism, or simply as a way of deflating the importance of Theism/Atheism in the first place.
edited 12th Apr '11 7:24:59 AM by Arthur
The use of the word "fairy" is most likely intentional indeed. It expresses an absurd belief, something that is most likely just childrens fairy tales. Are you really surprised that atheists/naturalists would express such sentiments at belief in the supernatural? It is illustrative of how one can percieve such beliefs when one is simply content with the garden.
I really fail to see such a statement as an "argument". It has no premises and conclusion - it is a very simple allegorically presented personal observation.
'It's gonna rain!'

I also know what "antediluvian" means. Probably from reading Many Waters, actually.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.